PURPOSE: Advanced cancer care planning is encouraged to achieve individualized care. We hypothesized that in-advance end-of-life (EOL) discussions and establishment of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status prior to the terminal admission would be associated with better quality of inpatient EOL care. METHODS: We conducted a post-mortality survey, utilizing the validated Toolkit of Instruments to Measure End-of-Life Care. Primary caregivers (PCGs) of the advanced cancer patients who died at our institution between January 2009 and December 2010 were contacted more than 3 months after the patients' death. The endpoints included overall score for EOL care (0-10; 10 = best care), problem scores of six domains (0-1; 1 = worst problem), and score for supporting family's self-efficacy (knowing what to expect/do during the dying process) (1-3; 3 = greatest support). RESULTS: Of 115 PCGs contacted, 50 agreed to participate (43.5 %). Patients with EOL discussions (n = 20), as compared to those without (n = 29), had higher rating of overall EOL care (9.7 vs. 8.7; p = 0.001): lower problem scores in "informing and promoting shared decision-making" (0.121 vs. 0.239; p = 0.007), "encouraging advanced care planning" (0.033 vs. 0.167; p = 0.010), "focusing on individual" (0.051 vs. 0.186; p = 0.014), "attending to emotional/spiritual needs of family" (0.117 vs. 0.333; p = 0.010), and "providing care coordination" (0.100 vs. 0.198; p = 0.032), and greater support for family's self-efficacy (2.734 vs. 2.310; p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in these outcomes between patients with DNR (n = 19) and those with full code (n = 31) on admission. CONCLUSION: Advanced cancer patients may receive higher quality of inpatient EOL care if they had in-advance EOL discussions.
PURPOSE: Advanced cancer care planning is encouraged to achieve individualized care. We hypothesized that in-advance end-of-life (EOL) discussions and establishment of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status prior to the terminal admission would be associated with better quality of inpatient EOL care. METHODS: We conducted a post-mortality survey, utilizing the validated Toolkit of Instruments to Measure End-of-Life Care. Primary caregivers (PCGs) of the advanced cancerpatients who died at our institution between January 2009 and December 2010 were contacted more than 3 months after the patients' death. The endpoints included overall score for EOL care (0-10; 10 = best care), problem scores of six domains (0-1; 1 = worst problem), and score for supporting family's self-efficacy (knowing what to expect/do during the dying process) (1-3; 3 = greatest support). RESULTS: Of 115 PCGs contacted, 50 agreed to participate (43.5 %). Patients with EOL discussions (n = 20), as compared to those without (n = 29), had higher rating of overall EOL care (9.7 vs. 8.7; p = 0.001): lower problem scores in "informing and promoting shared decision-making" (0.121 vs. 0.239; p = 0.007), "encouraging advanced care planning" (0.033 vs. 0.167; p = 0.010), "focusing on individual" (0.051 vs. 0.186; p = 0.014), "attending to emotional/spiritual needs of family" (0.117 vs. 0.333; p = 0.010), and "providing care coordination" (0.100 vs. 0.198; p = 0.032), and greater support for family's self-efficacy (2.734 vs. 2.310; p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in these outcomes between patients with DNR (n = 19) and those with full code (n = 31) on admission. CONCLUSION: Advanced cancerpatients may receive higher quality of inpatient EOL care if they had in-advance EOL discussions.
Authors: Jennifer S Temel; Joseph A Greer; Alona Muzikansky; Emily R Gallagher; Sonal Admane; Vicki A Jackson; Constance M Dahlin; Craig D Blinderman; Juliet Jacobsen; William F Pirl; J Andrew Billings; Thomas J Lynch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-08-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Thomas J Smith; Paul R Helft; David J Debono; Scott R Berry; Dana S Wollins; Daniel M Hayes; Jamie H Von Roenn; Lowell E Schnipper Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dong Wook Shin; Ji Eun Choi; Jung Hoe Kim; Ji Soo Joo; Jin Young Choi; Jina Kang; Young Ji Baek; Ha Na Mo; Jong Hyock Park; Eun Cheol Park Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Alexi A Wright; Baohui Zhang; Alaka Ray; Jennifer W Mack; Elizabeth Trice; Tracy Balboni; Susan L Mitchell; Vicki A Jackson; Susan D Block; Paul K Maciejewski; Holly G Prigerson Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joan M Teno; Brian R Clarridge; Virginia Casey; Lisa C Welch; Terrie Wetle; Renee Shield; Vincent Mor Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-01-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Matthew E Nilsson; Paul K Maciejewski; Baohui Zhang; Alexi A Wright; Elizabeth D Trice; Anna C Muriel; Robert J Friedlander; Karen M Fasciano; Susan D Block; Holly G Prigerson Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Tomer T Levin; Yuelin Li; Joseph S Weiner; Frank Lewis; Abraham Bartell; Jessica Piercy; David W Kissane Journal: Palliat Support Care Date: 2008-12
Authors: Megan C Thomas Hebdon; Lorinda A Coombs; Pamela Reed; Tracy E Crane; Terry A Badger Journal: Eur J Oncol Nurs Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: An Vandervoort; Dirk Houttekier; Robert Vander Stichele; Jenny T van der Steen; Lieve Van den Block Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lauren M Uhler; Rafael E Pérez Figueroa; Mark Dickson; Lauren McCullagh; Andre Kushniruk; Helen Monkman; Holly O Witteman; Negin Hajizadeh Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2015-02-25